For the last couple of decades, a prime lens wasn’t professional grade if it didn’t have a maximum aperture of f/1.4. Times have changed, however, and now, you have to look past the aperture to really understand where a lens is positioned. Want to know what drove this change?
Let’s get one thing out of the way first: in this article, just about every factor that I mention also applies to zoom lenses. I wanted to examine prime lenses because they have some of the best one-to-one correlations across product lines and within any manufacturer’s individual product stack. Also, these are general trends that are shaping the market, but not absolute rules, so there may be some exceptions.
Put broadly, a modern f/1.8 prime lens is perfectly suitable for professional use, compared to a f/1.4 or f/1.2 prime. The slightly shallower depth of field and slightly faster potential shutter speed are outweighed by the drastic increase in price and potential degradation in image quality. While manufacturers are still building these lenses, they’ve been increasingly relegated to “halo” products, as compared to the workhorses they were just a few years ago.
ISO 6,400
This first trend has been shaping the market for arguably the longest time, going back to the film era: the sensitivity of the capture medium to light. With common film stocks, you’d have a rough equivalent of ISO 100, with some available at speeds of up to around ISO 1,000 (and few at 3,200). This meant a fast lens was a necessity, as even a slight dip in available light could quickly see you reaching unusably slow shutter speeds. As faster films became available, suddenly, an f/2.8 lens wasn’t such an albatross around the neck of the user.
Between VR and clean high ISOs, shooting handheld under low light is much less of a challenge than in the past.
Fast-forward a few years, and these days, even consumer bodies are capable of a perfectly usable ISO 3,200 or 6,400, with VR or IS further expanding the usable shutter speed range. All of a sudden, having a very fast lens is even less of a priority for many uses. While a few niches, including astrophotography, sports, and some events still use all the speed available, for others, just bumping the ISO will suffice.
50+ Megapixels
With sensors achieving ever-higher megapixel counts, the optical issues inherent to making a very fast lens are making those lenses more expensive and less desirable. This trend is more recent, with camera manufacturers only recently taking it into consideration in their lens lineups.
As a little background to this, consider that in just a few years, we’ve jumped from 12 megapixels to 24 megapixels, then 36 megapixels, and now, 50 megapixels. Manufacturers quickly realized that these jumps in resolving power showed the weaknesses in their existing lenses, which had been designed to a standard that was fading quickly. As an easy example, Nikon’s D800 came with a technical guide which included a list of recommended lenses that “offer excellent resolution” for the body. This was a small subsection of the entire F-mount lineup. While the list features a number of f/1.4 lenses, as someone who has used those exact combos, I can say they were being optimistic.
Lens manufacturing is a complicated process, and lens design requires making tradeoffs. What this ends up looking like is an acceptable amount of decentering and reductions in resolution to make the lens affordable. To the end-user, this means sample variation: some copies of an f/1.4 lens can look great, while others can have issues. Further compounding this are the problems inherent to the more complicated AF mechanisms of DSLRs, where any misalignment can equal missed focus at f/1.4.
Even with a f/1.4 lens, you might end up stopping down to f/1.8 or slower anyway, as the optical aberrations are especially evident in some situations.
For example, consider these two lenses: the Nikon 85mm f/1.4 and 85mm f/1.8. Both are good lenses, but only one is a good value. The f/1.4 costs over three times as much as the f/1.8, while falling flat in many aspects when reviewed. Sure, it gets to f/1.4, but at what price? I saw this first hand, leading me to sell my f/1.4 version and “downgrade,” only to end up with sharper photos from the cheaper lens. For the price of one "fast" lens, you can buy an entire kit or an expensive trip to use the gear.
The Real World
The camera industry is facing challenges. Falling sales figures across the board mean that every company has to cut costs (even before the current pandemic-fueled predicament). Some of the first things up on the cutting board are the somewhat bloated product lines. For instance, Canon currently has 148 different DSLR kits available at B&H. Even considering some of these are minor variations of accessories, that still equals 17 different bodies. Is there really a meaningful difference to a consumer between the T6, T6i, and T6s?
A thinner, more rationalized product lineup will be necessary for any manufacturer that wants to be successful. Lenses offer a great example of this as well, since Canon and Nikon’s mirrorless roadmaps already reflect this thinking. Nikon is creating f/1.8 primes that beat both their F-mount equivalents and the upmarket f/1.4 F-mount versions, letting them sell one lens to their entire user base. The lenses come with all the pro-spec features, like a rear dust gasket and exceptional image quality, but lands at a price point within reach of most consumers.
Canon’s mirrorless strategy is quite different, but the portion relevant to this article could be summed up as “if it’s worth doing, it’s worth overdoing”. Freed from some of the constraints of DSLR autofocus systems, they’ve launched the newest versions of their f/1.2 primes. These are quite the accomplishment but come with a price tag to match, including a 50mm at over $2,000 and 85mm at around $3,000. Whether this makes sense in a mount without a pro-grade body, in an industry experiencing falling revenue, remains to be seen.
Whether your next lens is a sharper-than-ever f/1.8 or a wallet-withering f/0.95, the industry has shifted away from the anchor point of f/1.4. The top end of the market has pushed well beyond that point, while the majority has clustered around the “fast enough” f/1.8. I’d argue 99% of users are best served by some of the fantastic f/1.8 primes currently available and to remember that just because it doesn’t hit f/1.4 doesn’t mean it isn’t capable.
what a load of Blah Blah Blah!
You should pick a 0.95 1.4 or f2 for what it does, mostly look and character. If you can afford only a 1.8 that does not have anything to do with professional.
Everybody knows that a modern design lens of f2 is always going to be sharper the the 1.4 and 0.95
A professional picks the right tool for the job, in many cases the professional owns and uses all 3 lenses, that is why i have 6 50mm lenses.
You have SIX 50mm lenses? Why exactly? Are you afflicted with GAS?
With the exception of portrait photographers most pros value sharpness over thing depth of field. For macro photography the best pro-lenses such as my Nikon 200mm Micro has a wide aperture of f4. However with such a long macro lens, the depth of field is so razor thin at f4, I almost always shoot it closed down a bit. Many full time pros use Zeiss manual prime lenses for macro work which are f2 lenses and will still stop it down as they want the entire product in sharp focus. Like any question about “which lens should I buy?” the answer varies depending on what you shoot.
As a portrait photographer, I do not value thin DoF. At less than f/8.0, it is too thin for me for head shots. I rarely take portraits below that, and never less than f/4.0.
Just saying.
So, what's the alternative to my Zeiss Otus 85mm f/1.4? Sorry, there is none. I will gladly keep it and continue making great images with it. You can have that Canon 85mm f/1.8.
Wait... it did?
Just a bit of news. Technically...TECHNICALLY... f1.4 didn't mean professional 'anymore' as soon as digital first came out....where anyone could clearly change the ISO.
For what it's worth, I purchased the 85mm f/1.4G because the f/1.8G wasn't available at the time, but most of all I purchased it because wide open pinpoints of lights, especially in the corners, the lens renders them as relative pinpoint with very minimal coma. . Many lenses will show coma, bat wings, (my 50mm f/1.4G is really bad in this aspect).Unfortunately this kind of correction causes the lens to display magenta and green outlines so there's the trade-off.
The Nikon 24mm f2.8 S and 85mm f1.8 S and wonderful example of this. Absolutely top notch lenses, superb detail, nearly zero color aberation, great look... just amazing stuff.
Technology moves on. You would hope that the newer S-line would be sharper and corrected. However, that said, I think some of the aberrations we saw in the f/1.4G F-mount lenses were purposely left to give the lens "character." The Nikon 24mm, 58mm, 35mm, and 85mm, all have less sharpness and higher CA than the slower corresponding lenses, but they've all been praised for their image rendering and their out of focus characteristics. The newer lenses are clinically sharp and well corrected and people love them. However, you don't hear many praising them for their unique imaging characteristics because they do their job perfectly without any flaws (natural or artificial). So that said, which would you prefer? A perfect lens or one that has a bit of "character?"
good point! I would have both and put them to use when what i want to accomplish requires that particular lens
Give me a perfect lens anyday. Some call it “character,” I call it “aberrations.”
I spent years trying to avoid and mitigate chromatic aberration, and now video games & 3D renderers are adding it —and way to much of it— to create “realism,” and “character.”
Yeah, I will take the perfect lens.
Matt Irwin has a great video on this subject which is worth watching. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BbbzudDA6fk
When started using the new Nikon lenses, the S line of f/1.8s, I realized these are better than anything I used before, including a couple of the F-mount f/1.4 primes. But I believe the trend started earlier. The f/1.8G lineup in Nikon world is what opened the eyes of most users. These were pretty good already, at fraction of the price and user-friendly because of the smaller size.
As I mentioned in a reply (see above) the S-line is perfect, but it might not have "character." Flaws that were left on purpose by the lens creator to give it a certain look. The S-line is there to capture the image flawlessly and with perfection. The older f/1.4G lenses were designed with certain aberrations and flaws left in. The 58mm, 35mm, and 85mm come to mind. Those lenses are far, far from perfect, especially in the sharpness category, yet people sought them out because of the way they rendered the image.
From what I've seen. People "show off" about f/1.4 when they're a portrait photographer looking for the bokeh. It's never been about low light performance and more about how they can make the chinese food neon sign in the background and the "fairy lights" in the foreground out of focus while just the eyes were sharp.
Eyes? You mean, “eye.” 😁😄😉😃😂
The gear doesn't make you a professional, isn't that the key point?
Perhaps. If I had to put it into a sentence, it'd be "Lens design priorities have changed with high resolution, digital bodies, which has shifted the emphasis away from aperture value as a quality gauge". Less catchy, but I don't think this is really a gear = pro argument.
Article smells of FUD from a Nikon user. Launching a high end 47MP mirrorless camera with generic-rendering f/1.8 lenses with price tags of 1.4 lenses was a huge misstep. A $13,000 CAD manual focus lens was a huge misstep as well.
Canon got it right. Otus level lenses that weren’t possible on the older mounts, with autofocus, for half the price of an Otus.
Also, the R is a pro camera. It’s a mirrorless 5D4 in ever way except a 2nd card slot.
Also, R5 is on the way.
Hmmmm...how exactly are the Nikon Z 1.8's 20mm, 35mm, 50mm and 85mm "generic-rendering"? As a Z shooter I probably missed this and I need to know if I have to switch now. Never mind. I'm good.
Author could have gone with article title like "Are f1.4 lenses still a necessity?" or "Do you need to invest in f1.4 lenses?" Instead we have another misinterpretation of word "professional".
"For the last couple of decades, a prime lens wasn’t professional grade if it didn’t have a maximum aperture of f/1.4"
i am pretty sure leica will disagree
When trying to shoot in ambient while in extremely low light, I like to maintain the shutter at 1/160 to prevent motion blur of people moving at a normal pace. There is a big difference between ISO 6400 and 10000, shooting 1/100 substantially increases the chance of motion blur in everything but posed shots. So 1.4 and 1.2 lenses still have their place, as well a lighter 1.8/2,0 lenses when I know in advance that I will not need the big light gatherers.
Talent only differentiates talent. There are an awful lot of "pros" who make money with photography but are not very good technically or artistically.
But does the "P" on that dial thing on top of the camera still mean professional?
I have both 50mm f/1.4 and f/1.8 AIS Nikkors. Both are very sharp in the center but the f/1.8 is sharper in the corners. A 2/3 stop difference in maximum aperture is barely even noticeable in the viewfinder.
I also have an 85mm f/1.4 AIS Nikkor and had the 85mm f/2 AIS Nikkor and to be honest, the f/1.4 out performs it. The price difference, however is pretty substantial though.
.
I never shoot faster than f1.8 anyway unless I need it due to poor lighting. I don't wanna get rid of all the context of the background. If I did, I should shoot somewhere else
Very good article! I think Canon is conceding the general market. They are going after the Pros, serious amateurs, and luxury buyers. The money is in the glass. Moving the RF to Zeiss and Leica quality at a cheaper price than those but work in a modern camera. Sony will be the system for the masses.
I thought it was the quality of the lens and not the aperture that determined if the lens was professional or not. If it's not, then I've wasted a lot of money buying quality lenses when I should've been shopping for the cheapest lenses at or near the aperture I needed. WTH, why not just buy any aperture since that doesn't matter anyway?